IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.26262-26263/2016 (GM–RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. CHAROEN POPKHAND SEEDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1021/1, SERVICE ROAD, GEETANJALI LAYOUT, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 075.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.NANDEESHA S. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.VACHAN, ADV.) AND:
M/S. FINESSE INFAB, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2/3, 30TH CROSS, 29TH MAIN, BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 078. … RESPONDENT (BY MS.NAYANA TARA, ADV. FOR SRI.G.L.VISHWANATH, ADV.) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.02.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE – G PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE IN A..A.NO.60/16 AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri B.Vachan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Nayana Tara, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 25.02.2016 and 29.03.2016 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that during the pendency of the petitions, an Arbitrator was appointed and in the proceeding a date had been fixed for respondent’s arguments.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) is still pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the arbitration proceeding is said to have been commenced and it is at the advanced stage and in any case, if the respondent seeks any interim measure he is at liberty to file an application under Section 17 of the Act before the arbitrator. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the proceeding before the City Civil Court under Section 9 of the Act.
With the above said observation, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE TL